archetypes, and prestige archetypes.
I'd like to see more archetypes that change later level abilities. Either changing the capstone abilities or maybe some substitution capstone abilities if some prerequisites are met. i'll create characters that grow, and change goals, i'd like to then change the abilities gained to match that.
Would have much preferred making the Summoner, Alchemist, and Witch varient buids for Cleric, Sorcerer, and Wizard, and the Cavalier for Fighter, Ranger, and Paladin.
Have you read the new classes? As written, they're not really all that close to the base classes you reference.
Archetype > Prestige > Base
Ratio of at least 10:3:1
|
Archetype > Prestige > Base
Ratio of at least 10:3:1
I like the ratio. If you can't do it with an archetype swap out for different abilities then go prestige if you must ( I can't see why this really needs to bon done anymore I don't want to see the days gone bye come back where prestige class level where far better then core classes)as for core I think once magus is out most things can be covered with Archetypes and core classes should be VERY uncommon.
|
Archetypes 100%.
PrC's were the driving force behind some of the most egregious power creep in 3.5; I'd hope they only continue to see extremely limited use as late-level options for multiclass concepts used to partly compensate for the lack of base class capstone abilities.
Base classes are pretty much covered, I think. Hell, I think a case could be made for collapsing witch and alchemist into one class with two variant archetypes.
I'd have to agree with those who have suggested a ratio which favours archetypes over PrC's and new base classes. However that being said, I was really impressed with the 6 base classes that came out in the APG and hope that we'll see a couple more sometime in the future.
The other thing to note is that there may be an opportunity for more base classes when the regional books are released such as the one which has an oriental flavour that I think is currently under development. An oriental book naturally lends itself to more base classes such as the samurai, ninja and ronin. And if other regional books released in the distant future strike a particular theme, then I think the release of new base classes that embody that theme are justified.
|
I'd have to agree with those who have suggested a ratio which favours archetypes over PrC's and new base classes. However that being said, I was really impressed with the 6 base classes that came out in the APG and hope that we'll see a couple more sometime in the future.
The other thing to note is that there may be an opportunity for more base classes when the regional books are released such as the one which has an oriental flavour that I think is currently under development. An oriental book naturally lends itself to more base classes such as the samurai, ninja and ronin. And if other regional books released in the distant future strike a particular theme, then I think the release of new base classes that embody that theme are justified.
In before the "ninja should be an archetype ! No, it ought to be a new base class ! LOL @ u both, it's a PrC" flamewar ...
|
|
I hate having more base classes, and I think the idea of making archetypes was really awesome. Archetypes don't add to bloat so much, and it's easier to make a well-balanced archetype than it is to make a well-balanced class.
Bloat example: Look at the number of possible spell lists we have - Paladin, Ranger, Cleric, Druid, Witch, Inquisitor, Magus, Alchemist, Bard, and Sorcerer/Wizard. That's a lot. Whenever a new spell comes out, they have to specify which of all these classes gets the spell. And sometimes, it's easy to forget one.
If anything, I'd like to see LESS base classes going forward, and an expansion of the archetypes system.
I really liked the approach 2nd edition took, where you had one basic fighter base class, and sub-classes like the barbarian, ranger or paladin that changed only certain elements. It's easy to grasp for new players and offers plenty of customization. One of the things that turned me off of 3.5 was the neverending bloat of new classes.
Archetypes
Feats
Base classes
Prestige classes
In that order
Archetypes - They are really like having a prestige class from the start for generic themes (I mean one of those 3.5 PrCs that were just different mechanics glued on your BAB/Spell progression).
Feats - if it's just a minor change or a mechanic you'd like to see with multiple classes and/or it isn't connected with one class' shtick, then it should be a feat or a chain of feats.
Base classes - They should solely represent an original and interesting blend of mechanics, that doesn't correspond with current classes. APG is was a step in the right direction for me.
Prestige classes - With the requirements and focused mechanics they should really be a tool to fill the niches, build bridges between classes and make story appropriate characters that for some reason can't be represented by one of the previous things.
|
Archtypes : Base Classes : Prestige Classes
Ration of 25 : 1 : 0
Frankly, with the addition of archtypes, there's absolutely no need for prestige classes. I'm sure that much of this opinion comes from 3.X, where when WotC would had an idea for what should have been a 32 page softcover, but then would shove worthless prestige classes and other filler into it until it became a hardcover.
In before the "ninja should be an archetype ! No, it ought to be a new base class ! LOL @ u both, it's a PrC" flamewar ...I think Ninja should be a skill. Oh wait, stealth already is one.
Armor Proficiency: Black pajamas...
|
|
No love for the Ninja Race?
I want to play the ninja race, who takes levels in ninja base class, with the archtype ninja, and later multiclasses into the prestige class ninja. He will max out his ranks in the ninja skill, and take the feats ninja, improved ninja, greater ninja, and automatic perfect ninja.
I didn't realize what I was getting myself into when I mentioned "ninja" as a possible base class. Does Godwin's Law apply to ninjas as well?
I am not saying that neither the rogue or make bad assassins/ninjas, but I want someone with skills, who at certain times, limited per day can almost go toe to toe with a fighter.
How is that an assassin/ninja?
More archetypes please.
Whenever a ninja/assassin idea is brought people say just use the rogue or ranger, and since I am replying to this without reading past it I am almost sure someone will be saying the same thing in response to your statement.
PS:I will be surprised if nobody does it this time.
Just don't ask about Rule 34 and ninjas.
What is it?
|
|
If anything, I'd like to see LESS base classes going forward, and an expansion of the archetypes system.
I really liked the approach 2nd edition took, where you had one basic fighter base class, and sub-classes like the barbarian, ranger or paladin that changed only certain elements. It's easy to grasp for new players and offers plenty of customization. One of the things that turned me off of 3.5 was the neverending bloat of new classes.
If you could see me, you would see me nodding and smiling at this posters wisdom.
Without hitting the web I have no way of answering how many classes 3.5 ended up with, or that 4e has currently, I need to stop and think even with PF.
S.
I vote Kits... I mean Substitution Levels... I mean Archetypes.
Without hitting the web I have no way of answering how many classes 3.5 ended up with, or that 4e has currently, I need to stop and think even with PF.
S.
With Humor... 1st party, 3rd party, or all total :D?
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32
|
The one thing I noticed about the archetypes that really made me excited was the fact that several of my favorite PrC in 3.5 were easily made into an archetype.
I know I am a little odd, but I liked the Hulking Hurler quite a bit, and seeing that a Barbarian had the archetype option to almost completely rebuild that made me giggle a bit.
I already have paged through my 3.5 books looking for PrC to convert into archetypes. There are a ton of PrC out there that would fit better as an archetype.
I agree with less base classes. I also agree that oriental setting do not require specialized base classes. A European knight and a Japanese Samurai were very close in terms of skill and arms. I always played a samurai as either a paladin or a fighter, and with the Cavalier I can see someone going that route too. I also think creating an archetype for ninja using the monk class is that way to go.
PrC need to be treated less like a common main course and more like a privileged dessert. I am going to start a 3.5 game and the DM wants to know at character creation what PrC we are planning on taking around 6th level. If his expectation of us is an indication of anything, it should be that PF was awesome for making more desirable class systems.
I do have to say though that archetypes give munchkins more to play with. I for one found a way to create an archer that at level 3 suffers only a -5 at best due to range, not to mention all the other neat things that archer was able to do before mid-levels.
Definitely Archetypes. Though I do feel that the types of things changed by an archeype needs to be broadened. A Magus ARCHETYPE that allows for full BAB at the expense of say spells known would make me happy in the pants.
There really are quite enough base classes. I can personally only think of 2 or 3 niches that haven't been covered that absolutely CANT be covered by new feats or archetypes (or the combination of both).
I'd like to see just TONS more archetypes. I'd buy a book with just 5 new archetypes for each published class, assuming they are all good. The archetypes in the APG for, say, the fighter are spotty. Most of them are just really solid (Polearm, Mobile, THF) but something like the shield fighter or open hand fighter are IMO utter crap and worse than a baseline fighter for what they are specialized in.
More archetypes please :)
...I'm sure Paizo sees us and we will be heard. I think this thread is pretty overwhelming in its message.
Definitely Archetypes. Though I do feel that the types of things changed by an archeype needs to be broadened. A Magus ARCHETYPE that allows for full BAB at the expense of say spells known would make me happy in the pants.
There really are quite enough base classes. I can personally only think of 2 or 3 niches that haven't been covered that absolutely CANT be covered by new feats or archetypes (or the combination of both).
I'd like to see just TONS more archetypes. I'd buy a book with just 5 new archetypes for each published class, assuming they are all good. The archetypes in the APG for, say, the fighter are spotty. Most of them are just really solid (Polearm, Mobile, THF) but something like the shield fighter or open hand fighter are IMO utter crap and worse than a baseline fighter for what they are specialized in.
I am sorry I have to say this...
Archetypes wont replace BAB.. only abilities :S. Thats the point of the archetype is to substitute abilities for other abilities. The actual base statistics of the class (HD, Skills, BAB, Saves, ect.) all stay the same. Atleast from all the ones I have seen so far, so highly unlikely.
Although I wouldnt hate that its pretty close to a ranger or paladin and without those six levels of spells can you really call them a magic class that gets Magus Arcana?
|
|
Would have much preferred making the Summoner, Alchemist, and Witch varient buids for Cleric, Sorcerer, and Wizard, and the Cavalier for Fighter, Ranger, and Paladin.Have you read the new classes? As written, they're not really all that close to the base classes you reference.
Yes, I didn't mean to make Clerics/Druids/Sorcerers/Wizards into them exactly, but rather to offer those classes options to do what those new classes bring to the table, instead. It kind of feels like options have been taken from the base classes by introducing something that aught to be more of a build.
I'm loving the archtype system, and I hope Paizo continues to avoid allowing players to cherry pick class abilities on a 1 for 1 basis. Substitution levels in 3.5 were an awesome idea, but ran with the problem of allowing players to grab the good stuff and leave the weak.
With the new archtype system in play, there hasn't once been a moment when I looked at a class, got excited, and thought "Oh, wow, this feature is totally awesome! And it's replacing something I don't even care about! Win! ...Oh, but I don't get Class Feature X anymore? Crap."
That's what I consider balance.
It's hawt, but only ninjas can watch it.Just don't ask about Rule 34 and ninjas.What is it?
I didnt know. oh well 34-I would have come into play anyways.
|
|
If anything, I'd like to see LESS base classes going forward, and an expansion of the archetypes system.
I really liked the approach 2nd edition took, where you had one basic fighter base class, and sub-classes like the barbarian, ranger or paladin that changed only certain elements. It's easy to grasp for new players and offers plenty of customization. One of the things that turned me off of 3.5 was the neverending bloat of new classes.
If you could see me, you would see me nodding and smiling at this posters wisdom.
Without hitting the web I have no way of answering how many classes 3.5 ended up with, or that 4e has currently, I need to stop and think even with PF.
S.
Say what one must about early 2nd edition, their approach to classes was great. At least, it was until they started going down the "let's have a class for everything" road. Exceptional strength was stupid, and the sheer number of exceptions to all the rules was annoying, but the class selection started simple. And there were lots of options one could take to make it more complex, if one wanted to.
|
I'd prefer more alternate class features (or substitution levels) that can be applied modularly. Archetypes are a little too all-or-nothing for my tastes.
YES!
This was my problem with pretty much all of the Fighter archetypes. *All* that stuff should've been Feats.
I was also less than impressed with the Swashbuckler archetpye for Rogues. It wasn't horrible, there just wasn't much to it. Oddly, the Swashbuckler from Tome of Secrets did a better job of giving me a feel for that style of character.
More archetypes, but I tend to agree with Diabhol and Set above.
I'm personally experimenting with a completely classless makeover of the rules where every class feature falls somewhere within a set of feat trees. Is there a 3.5/OGL system out there that already does this?
|
|
More archetypes, but I tend to agree with Diabhol and Set above.
I'm personally experimenting with a completely classless makeover of the rules where every class feature falls somewhere within a set of feat trees. Is there a 3.5/OGL system out there that already does this?
Mutants & Masterminds, actually.
|
I like base classes and archetypes, but it feels like there's been a huge glut of them recently. There are so many different options to pick from when creating your character, and yet in comparison it seems like there are relatively few to pick from when leveling your character up. I never thought I'd hear myself say this back during the heyday of 3.5, but I really wish Pathfinder had some more prestige classes -- especially ones that weren't tied to specific base classes.
Especially the ones that are tied to two specific base classes, which I absolutely hate. (Rage Prophet and Nature Warden, I'm looking at you) Give me some more PrCs that aren't tied specifically to Golarion and can be applied to generic character concepts (sniper, metamagic user, hybrid casters, etc...) rather than specific classes.
As bizarre as this may sound to some people, I don't always like planning out a character's exact progression from level 1. Sometimes I just go with whatever seems appropriate for the campaign as I'm leveling up. Picking an archetype feels like I'm locked into that for the rest of my character's career.
I prefer archetypes (easier to implement) to base classes, though I honestly would not like to see either too overdone. I want to see cavaliers, rangers and barbarians get some loving in Ultimate Combat.
Some people may want to see the warlock returned...
I love the "Archetypes, base classes just add clutter" things people say.
I mean really, Have you seen some of the archetypes in Ultimate magic. Geshia, Dragon Shaman, Etc?
Those aren't just a one off thing. Give archetypes time and they will get just as bad in clutter if not worse (Since it is so much easier to implement an archetype than a PrC) than the PrCs and Base classes of 3.5.
Especially when you start having multiple archetypes that continuously modify the same class feature, or you have classes like wizard and sorcerer that have no real class features besides spell casting.
Truthfully there needs to be a healthy mix of PrC, Archetypes, Base Classes and Alternent classes.
But above all else RIGHT NOW, we really need things like the quigon monk. Cause sometimes one feature just does not work with a concept or becomes kinda useless in an archetype but often you can't just spot out that one feature without spotting out the feature you did want.
For example Vivisectionist has little use for throw anything. I mean it is nice and all, but if you never plan to throw things, it is useless. But you have to get rid of swift alchemy in order to get rid of it via the Internal Alchemist. (Along with swift poisoning)
So you are stuck with a useless ability, because you do need swift alchemy and swift poisoning, because you plan to be more a poisoner than a bomber.
Archetypes I like, they are simple and straightforward to apply without cherry picking too much, though I feel sometimes they stretch a bit too far for a concept that doesnt quite fit and would be better served as an alternate class with abilities that are different enough not to be covered by an archetype like different spell lists, skills and skill points, base armor and weapon proficiencies, slightly different advancement of class abilities and unique options.
PrCs I often do not like, while some do have potential they feel a bit metagamist tag-ons, I rather have PrC more restrictive in how you can flow into it rather than inviting players to open a box of tricks to fullfill the requirements with obscure character options. They serve fairly well when used to multi-class specific combinations, but much rather see those represented in base classes that simulate multi-class combinations, like done with the magus allowing for a less mechanically clunky character with clear progression.
Base Classes, aside from wanting to see multi-class variants as base classes I'd like to see few of them and no new spellcasting classes with unique spell lists.
I do not mind getting more of archetypes, with a rare prc I rather see paizo looking at other ways to expand the game